Evolutionary Dead-Ends

Here is another example of what extreme feminism hath wrought:

My understanding of reproduction is that it is the basis of the institutions of marriage and family, and those two provide the moorings to the structure of gender and sexual oppression. Family is the social institution that ensures unpaid reproductive and domestic labour, and is concerned with initiating a new generation into the gendered (as I analyzed here) and classed social set-up. Not only that, families prevent money the flow of money from the rich to the poor: wealth accumulates in a few hands to be squandered on and bequeathed to the next generation, and that makes families as economic units selfishly pursue their own interests and become especially prone to consumerism.

 So it makes sense to say that if the world has to change, reproduction has to go.

First of all, the writer refers to having a family as “unpaid reproductive and domestic labor,” as if the Almighty Dollar should be the sole determination of whether or not to do something. (Far-left feminists are usually socialists or communists as well, but this rationale seems to smack of capitalism to me.) Even if we disregard the spiritual or religious reasons to marry and raise a family, the fact remains that the tangible benefits increase exponentially with each successive generation. If a man and a woman have three children, and each child has three children, then the original couple will have nine people to assist them in old age. In the current economic climate, I presume that Americans will not be able to depend on Social Security and Medicare once the entitlement programs, unless they are reformed, bankrupt the government. Of course, children are expensive, but this more than compensated by other factors.

One cannot put a price tag on the intangible benefits. I have never had children, but I am sure that any mother would not take $1 million in return for never seeing her child graduate high school, get married, and have a child of his own. But there is more to it. The birth of a child is a beautiful promise that symbolizes the potential of humanity as a whole. (In a similar thought, an old Jewish adage from the Talmud states that saving one life is the same as saving all of humanity.) Every child that is born might be the one to cure cancer, invent a form of permanent alternative energy, or perhaps even be the Messiah himself. Raising a family is a form of self-sacrifice that society needs people to do. But extreme feminists like the author seem to focus on selfish, material things: It’s unpaid labor! It keeps money in the hands of families!

I like children, but every time I fantasized of having one, I felt pangs of guilt over how for this ‘impulse’ of mine, someone else would have to put their body on the line.

And this is one of the primary faults of extreme feminism: Women expect nature to change to suit their artificial worldviews. It is natural for females to want to have a family, but the writer just wants to sweep this primal instinct under the rug since it is not politically correct. One should not experience “pangs of guilt” over how Nature — or God, if you believe — created humans. The truth is the truth, whether one likes it or not.

I was raised in an extended family setting with a lot of women, and as they got married, I noticed their lives becoming either extremely stressed (if they chose to work) or extremely limited in their scopes, and sometimes even threatened in a pregnancy. This feeling was reinforced when people’s indifference to women’s condition frustrated me.

Oh no — stress! God forbid that a person has any stress in his life. I once asked my stepfather how he handled the stress of raising my little brother, and he told me, “Every time I look out the kitchen window and see him playing in the backyard, it makes it worth it.” I am sure this is true for any family. As I wrote in an earlier post criticizing the Dalai Lama for similar comments he made in a speech, a stress-free life is not the ideal. If someone has no stress, then he has nothing in his life about which he truly cares.

And the idea of lives spent raising a family being “limited in their scopes,” well, that is an opinion based on a faulty premise. As Vox Day has written, a mother raising a family well is more important than a woman being a renowned CEO or some other workaholic:

Motherhood is a sacrifice. It may mean putting off a college education and a career, or even giving them up entirely. It may mean sacrificing a flawless figure. It may mean sacrificing dreams. It definitely means putting two, three, four or more lives ahead of your own. But motherhood is also an expression of hope. Motherhood is a vote of confidence in the future of mankind. Motherhood is the brave voice of a woman saying, “I will not live life for today. I will create life for many tomorrows.”

So much for the lives of mothers being “limited in their scopes.” At least society will not have to worry about people with these beliefs for long. As Vox Day put it elsewhere, these “evolutionary dead-ends” will not have any children through whom to pass on these inane ideas.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s